Blood and Jehovah's Witnesses: A TRM thread

Many sides of the controversial blood question was discussed in a thread on TRM in April 1995. Below you will find three articles I wrote in the discussion. They point to some of the serious ethical, religious and biblical problems involved, and should demonstrate to what degree the Watchtower Society has been deceiving individual Jehovah's Witnesses on a question that can literally kill them.

Subject: Re: JW's  -  Anointed?
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: Jan S. Haugland

Dean Sadites (dsadites@mcd.on.ca)
wrote:
: Actually, Jehovah's Witnesses *are* careful to avoid any
foods which may 
: contain blood or blood by-products. 

That is the understatement of the year! When I was young,
there was always
some nut coming up with a new fanatsy along the lines "it's
blood in x".
Danish rolls, margarine, snicker chokolate, you name it!

:                                     God's law to Noah, was
that he could 
: use animals for meat, provided they were properly bled, and
Jehovah's 
: Witnesses are careful to follow these guidelines.  

This is a complete misunderstanding of Gen 9:4. This text is
*not* about
eating blood. Just like Gen 9:6 about shedding "blood of man"
is *not* about
taking a blood test but about killing, the same words in verse
4 means that
it was illegal to eat meat taht still had *life* in it.

  Gen 9:4 "Only you shall not eat flesh with
  its life, that is, its blood."

This is nothing new. Martin Luther's commentary to Gen 9:4
says exactly the
same thing. Rabbi Raschi (living 1040-1105), a well-known
jewish Bible and 
talmud commentator, said that these words meant that 'as long
as the life is
in the flesh you shall not eat it.' This is the rabbinic
traditional under-
standing of these words, and considering their expertise you
should have very
good arguments to believe the opposite.

: Furthermore, over 4.9 million Jehovah's Witnesses around the
world do not 
: consider it a "far-fetched extension" to apply God's law,
which, by the 
: way, also appears in the "New Testament" (Acts 15:20; 15:28,
29; 21:25), 
: to blood transfusions.

Over 4.9 million JWs will consider *anything* from their
Governing Body
true, without even considering contrary evidence. Up until
1980 they
didn't consider it a "far-fetched extension" to disfellowship
those who
took an organ transplant. You should also consider the fact
that most of
those bright men in Brooklyn that have been controlling the
organization,
considered it perfectly intelligeble that in Job 40:10-41:25
"behemoth"
referred to the stationary steam engine (in every detail!) and
that
"leviathan" referred to the steam locomotive. Further, they
believed that
Michael in Rev 12 - now believed to be Christ - was the pope.
For a long
time JWs were willing to twist every scripture they could find
to support
the ridiculous idea that the authorities in Rom 13:1 was God
and Christ!
When the Watchtower Society changed the understanding, all JWs
changed
their minds, of course. Heck, until 1993 they believed that
the "signs"
in heaven in Matt 24:29,30 was Sputnik and space rockets.

Until you can show that Acts 15 actually applies universally
and is not
as James said in Acts 15:21 a rule to avoid offending the
jews, this
reference has no value. On the contrary, it shows that again
the Watchtower
Society is governed by people with very little understanding
of the Bible.

See my other posting here some time back addressing this
point.

: This sounds very noble in theory, and your interest in
helping others is 
: very commendable.  But, when the all the facts are examined,
it becomes 
: obvious that blood transfusions are not as necessary to the
saving of life 
: as once believed, especially in light of the numerous
alternatives 
: available.  

Nonsense! "Not as necessary" you say. Sometimes it *is*
necessary, and no
amount of reference to single cases when it was not necessary
will change
that. If some JW child has leukemia and *needs* a transfusion
to survive
it helps very little that some surgeon in Texas can transfer
hearts without
blood transfusions. The fact is that *some* JWs die because of
this stupid
rule. Instead of just reading what the WTS itself claims about
this with
selective quotes, you should do a honest examination. An
article by dr
Elisabeth Rosenthal in _Discover_ Aug 1988, pages 28-31 is
well worth a
look.



From: uhhjh@alfred.uib.no (Jan Steinar Haugland)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: JW's  -  Anointed?

Dan Simoes (dans@coimbra.ans.net) wrote:
: The primary scripture govering a Christian's stand on blood
is Acts
: 15:28,29:
:         For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored
adding no
:         further burden to YOU, except these necessary
things, to keep
:         abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from
blood and
:         from things strangled and from fornication. If YOU
carefully
:         keep yourselves from these things, YOU will prosper.
Good
:         health to YOU!"

What is governing the JW stand on blood is the late
Woodworth's deep
hate for the medical profession. In his crucades against
modern medicine
and doctors he used the pages of The Golden Age to state that
smallpox
vaccination was a crime against humanity. Not before the early
50s did 
the WTS lift the vaccination ban. How many JWs do you think
died? Did
the WTS apologize for misleading people into death when they
without
any foundation in the scriptures banned vaccinations and organ
transplants? You know that the answer is no. 

And guess what: besides other crazy arguments, he quoted the
command in
Acts 15:28,29 as a command to abstain from blood. Woodworth
was, as anyone
who have read _The Finished Mystery_ can tell you, a crackpot
with no
understanding of the Bible whatsoever.

Any half serious Bible commentary will tell you that:

1) The text is *no* cammand. As F. F. Bruce says in his
_Commentary on the
Book of the Acts_ (1962): "Although NT Greek is well supplied
with verbs 
of commanding it is noteworthy, as F. J. A. Hort pointed out,
that none
of them is used here." (p 315). Even if the text should apply
to christians
living today, it is definately no command. Hort also says that
it is
"a strong expression of opinion, more than advice and less
than a command."
(F. F. Bruce: _The Acts of the Apostles_, 1990, p 346)

2) As a list of christian principles, some noteworthy ones
like murder
and stealing is absent. Why? What is special with this list?
Actually,
as - again - a good commentary will tell you, these 4 things
are exactly
the same requirements listed in Lev 17 and 18 and *in the same
order*.
What is it? It is the requirements for gentiles living in
Israel. Reading
the context of the discussion in Jerusalem should explain why
this
question came up. It is also quite obvious why the
congregation came to
this compromise decision.

3) James himself gave the reason for these "rules". In 15:19
he lists the
requirements, and in verse 20 he states the *reason*: "For
from early 
generations Moses has had in every city those who preach him,
for he is 
read every sabbath in the synagogues."  Now, tell me, why
should reading
of Moses be a *reason* for abstaining from blood? Because if
the gentiles
did not follow these 4 rules, the jews would refuse to talk to
them or
eat with them. To be able to preach to jews - and in some
areas in the
eastern parts of the Roman empire 10-15% of the population
were jews -
the gentiles had to conform to these rules. See also Acts
21:22-25 to
see how important it was for the early christians to not leave
the 
impression they were telling people to ignore the law of
Moses.

4) This is strongly confirmed by Paul. One of the 4 things the
christians
should abstain from in Acts 15 was that "beeing sacrificed to
idols". But
in his first letter to the Corinthians, Paul explicitly states
that since
idols don't really exist, christians are free to eat whatever
they want.
Paul is saying that eating things sacrificed to idols is all
right! The
following advice from the apostle should be seriously
considered by JWs
who believe that God requires us to abstain from certain
foods:

  1Co8:8 "Food will not commend us to God.
  We are no worse off if we do not eat,
  and no better off if we do." (RSV)

Considering the weak fundation of the JW ban on *eating*
blood, it is clear
that the rule against blood transfusions find no basis
whatsoever in the
Bible.


Cheers,
- Jan



From: uhhjh@alfred.uib.no (Jan Steinar Haugland)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: JW's  -  Anointed?

Dean Sadites (dsadites@mcd.on.ca) wrote:
> > First, as have been demonstrated, this is not a law today.
Luther 
> > obviously did not know the facts behind the verses in Acts
15.
> 
> There are many others, besides Luther, who would disagree
with Jan's 
> version of the facts regarding Acts 15:



Yes, there are. I am not less than amused with your reference
to Tertullian 
and others. Before citing him as a truth-witness for
*anything*, I think you 
should read his writings. The man was, to put it bluntly, an
extreme fanatic.

Many of your other references were very incomplete, which
makes it easy to 
conclude that you quoted them from Watchtower literature. For
good reason, 
the WTS seem to be rather paranoid about giving references so
people can 
*check* them. Assuming that all references were valid, I must
say the list 
was thin and obscure indeed. Many of the references also
commented on the 
blood prohibition during the pre-Christian era, and we both
agree that eating 
blood was prohibited under the law of Moses. 

The Watchtower Society often mentions some early christians to
show that the 
ban on eating blood was understood as valid for christians.
They refer to 
Eusebios (who quotes a female martyr named Biblis), Tertullian
and Minicius 
Felix. What they don't tell is that this opinion was not the
only one, or 
even held by the majority of early christian writers. Before
the 4th century 
the so-called *western* texts were most widely spread, and in
these the 
apostles' decree talked about "idoltary, fornication and
murder" in Acts 
15:28,29. As you can see, the reference to strangled things
are omitted, and 
"blood" is changed to "murder".The WTS carefully omits the
reference where 
Tertullian ~8 years after writing the text you quoted cites
the apostolic 
decree as forbidding *murder*, not eating blood. Other
writers, like 
Cyprianus (in _Testimonia_) quotes the western tradition. 

In the 1977 _Question of Blood_ booklet, the WTS dishonestly
refer to these 
early writers for support, when a full quote would show they
understood the 
decree differently, namely to refer to murder.

> > The text in Acts 15:28,29 is *no* cammand. 

> Whether the term used in Acts 15:28 is a "technically" a
command, or 
> not, is immaterial since this scripture clearly alludes to a
command 
> that WAS given at an earlier time, originally to Noah, and
later to the 
> Israelites.

As you have seen, the command to Noah is at least ambiguous,
and was not 
generally understood by the jews at the time of Jesus to refer
to a ban on 
eating blood.

The scripture alludes to an old law, sure, but the text
*recommends* 
abstaining from things that would stumble jews, it does not
command it. When 
the Lord's apostles chose this cautious wording, how can the
WTS defend 
making it a life-and-death matter where a person will be
disfellowshiped from 
the congregation and refused contact with friends and family
for choosing not 
to follow it?

>            It is the same as saying: "You should not
murder."  
> Obviously, this statement is not a direct command, but in no
way does 
> this minimize the fact that it is wrong to murder because it
alludes to 
> the command originally given by Jehovah: "You must not
murder." (Exodus 
> 20:13)

This example is interesting, but it does not exist in the
Bible. Murder is 
*explicitly* condemned in the NT as well, while eating blood
is never 
mentioned except in reference to having respect for the jewish
christian's 
feelings.

> Actually the words "no further burden" do take effect,
however, they are 
> used with respect to matters in the Mosaic law that were
questioned, 
> such as circumcision. At no point did anyone ever question
whether it 
> was wrong to murder or to steal.  

Neither did anybody ask if it was necessary to not eat blood. 

> Furthermore, the governing body did not form a council to
determine what 
> was "necessary" in order to avoid offending the Jews.  The
purpose of 
> the council was to determine whether Christians were obliged
to keep the 
> Mosaic law.  This is what the whole controversy was about in
the first 
> place.  

You have misunderstood it, because you read the authoritarian
top-down JW 
organization of today into the scriptures. Paul and Barnabas
did not go to 
Jerusalem to *ask* if the Mosaic law was fulfilled. There was
no such thing 
as a "governing body". The apostles actually had no supreme
position among 
christians, as can be seen by the fact that all the older men
were there, and 
that they later brought the question to the full congregation
before making a 
conclusion. 

Also, the main point of the meeting was not to *decide*
anything on doctrine. 
Jesus himself had explicitly stated what needed to be said on
this topic. The 
problem was that some jews simply could not accept that the
law of Moses was 
no longer valid. Some of them had come down to Antioch to
preach their 
gospel, and Paul and Barnabas were sent to make sure the
Jerusalem ecclesia 
had not sent them to preach the law of Moses to others. The
beginning of the 
letter from Jerusalem explains *why* it was sent: "Since we
have heard that 
some persons from us have troubled you with words, unsettling
your minds, 
although we gave them no instructions..." (Acts 15:24)

> > Acts 15:21 . . .
> > Now, tell me, why should the weekly reading of Moses be a
*reason* for 
> > abstaining from blood? 
> 
> The point being made in verse 21 has more to do with *what*
was being 
> read, rather than with who wrote it or when it was read. The
fact that 
> abstinence from blood and things strangled were among the
items read 
> regularly since the time of Moses, would indicate the
importance that 
> these held in comparison to other laws of the Mosaic code
(mostly of a 
> cerimonial nature), that evidently were not read.  

"Evidently were not read?" You are on fairly thin ice
(favourite JW 
expression), if your argument relies on this being the most
important part of 
the law of Moses as it was read then. I can tell you right
away that you are 
completely wrong. 

>                                                   It was for
this 
> reason that it was deemed necessary to uphold these specific
laws 
> involving idolatry, fornication and blood.

Sorry, you make no sense here. The *reason* for upholding
these laws could 
only be that they were considered binding by Christ. Nowhere
is the 
background for a prohibition on eating blood discussed, simply
because there 
are no such prohibition. 

> The fact that adulterers, homosexuals and thieves are
mentioned at 
> 1 Corinthians 6:9, but are absent from 1 Corinthians 5:11,
does not 
> preclude them from being sinners in the latter.  Likewise,
"spiritism" 
> is mentioned at Revelation 21:8, but not included in the
other mentioned 
> scriptures.  

You miss the point. Why is blood only mentioned in the context
of not 
offending jews? That would be a strange coincidence.

> > You also carefully avoided the fact that Paul explicitly
stated that 
> > eating meat offered to idols was all right as long as it
offended none 
> > (1Co 8:1-12), while this was one of the things forbidden
in Acts 15. 
> > If this rule was universal, how could Paul say it did not
apply?
> 
> An accurate understanding of these scriptures shows that
Paul did not 
> disagree with the what was stated at Acts 15, as implied
above. Note 
> what the Watchtower (October 15, 1978 p.30) said on the
matter:

>   What the decree in Acts 15:28, 29 forbade was a
Christian's being 
>   part of a formal, religious ceremony or his committing an
act of 
>   idolatry. Those who sacrificed an animal to an idol got
some of the 
>   meat to eat. Their doing so was clearly a religious act;
it was 
>   considered sharing in a meal with the pagan god. 

You certainly have to do better than quoting the Watchtower to
support this 
idea. Here we see how little respect the WTS have for the
Bible. Instead of 
letting the Bible speak for itself, they make the scriptures
say something 
completely different than it really does. Verse 29 says "that
you abstain 
from what has been sacrificed to idols". The text itself
clearly talks about 
the *meat*, not the act of worshiping an idol. 

> It is not a question of being "legal" or "illegal" for
Jehovah's 
> Witnesses. 

Of course it is. "Matter of conscience" means "legal" to JWs.
The other 
components are *illegal*, meaning nobody is free to exercise
any conscience, 
and that they will be subject to harsh discipline if they do
so.

Look at these references to Watchtower literature to see what
arguments are 
used to force people to die and parents to let their child die
for the 
Watchtower's rulemaking:

"They know that if the violate God's law on blood and the
child dies in the 
process, they have endangered that child's opportunity for
everlasting life 
in God's new world." (_Blood, Medicine and the Law of God_,
1961, p. 54)

"It may result in the immediate and very temporary
prolongation of life, but 
that at the cost of eternal life for a dedicated Christian."
(op.cit. p. 55)

>            Since the scriptures do not specifically rule out
tiny blood 
> fractions (which are not considered the same as whole blood
or major 
> blood components),

Why not? Abstaining is abstaining, isn't it? Where in the
Bible do we find a 
fraction size criteria? It would certainly be interesting to
apply your 
"tiny" criteria on other Bible verses.

>                   it was determined to be a matter of
conscience.  

This is where it really gets tricky. Why then is some "tiny"
fractions 
forbidden while some not-so-tiny are legal (sorry, "matter of
conscience")?

Also, if the text in the Bible says "abstain from blood" like
you have 
interpreted it, how can JWs claim they follow this law if
"tiny fractions" 
are OK? Is it OK to steal tiny amounts of money? 

Where is the limit? How can a body of self-appointed rulers
*decide* how 
small a fraction you can ignore abstaining from?

The more I think about this question, the more ridiculous it
becomes. I'm not 
laughing, though... The blood issue is one of those questions
most clearly 
demonstrating how tragic things develop when some elite of
"anointed" starts 
to rule over other people's conscience.

> Let's see ... There are about 260,000,000 Americans, and
about 10,000, 
> or 0.0038%, of these have hemophilia.  With currently around
1,000,000 
> Jehovah's Witnesses in the United States, that works out to
maybe 38 who 
> have hemophilia.  But, this does NOT mean that these 38
Jehovah's 
> Witnesses in the U.S. have accepted a Factor VIII
transfusion, nor that 
> 90% of that number have HIV.

This number-trickery - which I don't feel like checking - does
not hide the 
fact that abstaining from blood tranfusions the JW way does
*not* give any 
real protection against HIV. Yet, the _Awake!_ article I
quoted made that 
claim to support their view. As such, they made a false claim.

> > Actually, *eating of blood* is not very important. I don't
eat foods 
> > made from blood. Even *if* this rule had applied to
christians as you 
> > say it does, it would *not* apply to blood transfusions. 
> 
> The command to "keep abstaining from blood" makes no
distinction between 
> taking blood through the mouth or through blood vessels.  If
a person 
> was fatally allergic to a certain drug, it would make no
difference 
> whether the drug was administered orally or injected into
the 
> bloodstream.  The end result would be the same.  Only
complete 
> abstinence from the drug would ensure safety.

So what? If you take the words "abstain from blood" literally
you could not 
eat meat. When you slaugher the animal the way a hunter did
it, almost 50% of 
the blood would be left in the flesh. There is no logic in
pretending the 
words are literal in one sense, and then ignoring it
completely in every 
other sense, like with "tiny" components. If I take only a
"tiny" dose of a 
drug, that would be perfectly safe, huh?

The reference to "injection" is irrelevant. When a drug is
injected into the 
blood, it is taken up more or less like if you had eaten it
(depending of 
course, on the type of drug). Blood is not consumed, and there
is no way 
blood transferred into the blood stream is converted into
nourishment like if 
you had eaten it. The WTS often quotes the doctors Jean
Baptiste Denys and 
Thomas Bartholin to support the idea that eating blood and
blood transfusions 
are the same thing. Both these are from the 15th century! Why
don't they find 
support from more recent medical experts supporting this idea?
Obviously 
because there are none.

> > 5) Life is more important than a symbol of life. See Matt
12:1-8, 
> > where Jesus finds an example in David which shows you can
even break 
> > the law if they need food to eat because you are hungry. .
. .
> 
> Again, a misunderstanding and misapplication of Scripture,
in this case 
> Matthew 12:1-8, would seemingly support this view. However,
an accurate 
> understanding of this and surrounding scriptures reveals
that Jesus knew 
> that David's actions did NOT violate Scriptural regulations,
but rather, 
> violated only rabbinical law as set forth in the Mishnah,
the code of 
> Jewish traditional law. 

How could David be afraid to violate Mishnah, which was given
many centuries 
later? Lev 24:7-9 shows that the Law of Moses - no rabbinical
law - 
*explicitly* stated that only Aaron and his sons - the priests
- could eat 
this holy bread. Jesus said in Mat 12:4 that David and his men
were *not* 
allowed to eat it, yet they did. 1Sam 21:1-6 shows how the
priest broke the 
law, and Matthew tells us that Jesus said it was perfectly all
right to set 
ceremony law aside in special circumstances.

>                                                              
   Had 
> David violated one of Jehovah's very clear laws regarding
the Sabbath, 
> Jesus would not have condoned his actions.

Do you *seriously* say that if a person were dying, and other
people would 
have to work hard to save his life, Jesus would have forbidden
them to do so? 

> This will be my final post on this thread.

That is a bit disappointing, since you didn't touch on a
fraction (a "tiny 
fraction", perhaps) of my arguments and made a series of wrong
claims. 

But we all know why, Dean.


Cheers,

- Jan
--
           "Preach the gospel at all times.
            If necessary, use words."
                          -- St. Francis

Abbreviation:

TRM The Usenet discussion group talk.religion.misc.